#24601  
Old 01-31-2013, 11:06 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No, they are not the same photons.
Then you have incorrectly answered our questions. I asked you quite specifically about the photons which are at the retina at 12:00, and you told me they came from the Sun and were also located at the Sun at 12:00.
I said that if the Sun is bright enough to see it, the photons would be at the retina. If the Sun was not bright enough when first ignited for us to see it, there would be no photons at the retina. The distance between the actual object and the eye is not significant. What is significant is the size and brightness of the object, which allows a mirror image to show up no matter how far away an object is.

Quote:
Not the same photons Spacemonkey. Photons at the retina are not the same photons that are at the Sun. You have misunderstood me all this time? :eek:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
No, you've misunderstood me. The photons I asked you about were those at the retina, and you told me they came from the Sun and were located there at 12:00. But that is the same time that they are at the retina. If you were talking about different photons then you weren't answering what I asked.
They can't be the same photons Spacemonkey. They are different photons than the newly formed photons being emitted from the Sun. This is not magic or teleportation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But this does not change the fact that what we are seeing is a mirror image of the object. We are not getting blue photons before red, which would be logical in the afferent account since distance and time are factors that do not exist in the efferent account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I'm still not saying anything at all about blue vs. red photons. Please answer my questions, without contradiction this time:-


Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]
I answered those already. Photons are at the retina at 12 noon when the Sun is first ignited only if the Sun is large enough and bright enough to be seen at that early stage. If it meets those requirements, it automatically places photons at the retina as a mirror image which means we are in the Sun's optical range due to this light. This light does not have to travel 93 million miles to be at the retina, which is right back to the afferent account.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #24602  
Old 01-31-2013, 11:10 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
...if the Sun is bright enough to see it, the photons would be at the retina. The distance between the actual object and the eye is not significant. What is significant is the size and brightness of the object, which allows a mirror image to show up no matter how far away an object is.

it automatically places photons at the retina as a mirror image which means we are in the Sun's optical range due to light, but the light does not have to travel 93 million miles, which is where you are stuck.
Light doesn't work that way, that's why we keep asking you the same questions over and over.

That distance exists in physics and is significant in physical laws. You must account for light somehow bypassing that distance in your model.
Reply With Quote
  #24603  
Old 01-31-2013, 11:12 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I said that if the Sun is bright enough to see it, the photons would be at the retina. If the Sun was not bright enough when first ignited for us to see it, there would be no photons at the retina. The distance between the actual object and the eye is not significant. What is significant is the size and brightness of the object, which allows a mirror image to show up no matter how far away an object is.
None of this is what I'm asking you about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
They can't be the same photons Spacemonkey. They are different photons than the newly formed photons being emitted from the Sun. This is not magic or teleportation.
So then answer my questions. If you were talking about different photons when you said they came from the Sun and were located there at 12:00, then you weren't talking about the photons I asked you about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Please answer my questions, without contradiction this time:-


Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]
I answered those already.
No, you answered them wrongly. You either located the photons in two places at the same time, or were talking about different photons from those I asked you about. So you will need to answer them again:-


Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #24604  
Old 01-31-2013, 11:12 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
They are different photons than the newly formed photons being emitted from the Sun.
Then where were they formed/emitted?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (01-31-2013)
  #24605  
Old 02-01-2013, 01:29 AM
koan koan is offline
cold, heartless bitch
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: MCCCXXXVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by koan View Post
You just had to come back because I was wrong?
Oh, I guess you're screwed then.

If you ever try to leave this thread you'll be stuck knowing that one of us will write the thread summary explaining how wrong Lessans is based on all the accumulated knowledge and scientific advancement since he wrote his book. How will you deal with the knowledge that someone got the last word and might have made you look bad? Can you deal with it? Could you walk away knowing that one of us "out there" probably made you look nuts? That's what'll happen. It's inevitable because we've already shown that you're nuts. How can you leave until you prove us wrong?

It's a dilemma. I know how to solve it but I won't tell you because you're so mean to me.
Oh be quiet koan. You didn't even respond to the post or the explanation I gave you because it made sense. You don't like that it made sense. You want to be right at all costs because you want Lessans to be wrong. You are a terrible reader because you have not understood a word he said. You don't even know what the discovery is. If I feel like responding to misinterpretations of this book, I will continue to do so, and you can do nothing about it. Think what you want about me, I could care less. You don't get to generalize your thoughts about me to everyone. This is your only validation, but it doesn't work because you don't know what other people think. Far from it. You are a wannabe shrink, and you're failing miserably. You don't know the first thing about psychoanalysis; you're speaking total psychobabble. :giggle: :laugh:
I did respond to your post. I just haven't had the time to go through all the nonsense yet so I started with
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I couldn't help from coming back because you're so utterly mistaken koan.
I have the rest of your responses on a wordpad so I can address each part. I'm interested in getting to an agreed upon summary. Your two years of contradictions and the internal contradictions of the book itself make a summary a difficult thing to achieve. Unlike you, I can actually visit this thread or not visit the thread and actually have better things to do from time to time. I had a lovely evening with my girlfriend last night. We didn't talk about you or your book because she couldn't manage to finish reading it. That is really going to be your main problem in getting your "discovery" into action. Too bad you're unwilling to fix the problem.
__________________
Integrity has no need of rules

- Albert Camus
Reply With Quote
  #24606  
Old 02-01-2013, 02:40 AM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: VCXLV
Images: 8
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
There is no bi-location LadyShea. That's a total misconception. Light energy is in constant motion. Photons are constantly replaced so there's no photon in two different places at the same time. That does not mean we aren't getting a mirror image. You are, once again, coming from the afferent perspective which states that light is all that is necessary for sight.
How are photons "replaced"? What's replacing them? If the Sun is extinguished at the start of our experiment, there are no photons on Earth for people to see or be seen. How do those photons get to our eyes to allow us to see the Sun 8 minutes before the first photons reach us?

The correct answer is that Lessans' ideas are trash and deserve to be disregarded.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (02-01-2013)
  #24607  
Old 02-01-2013, 04:46 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
The correct answer is that Lessans' ideas are trash and deserve to be disregarded.

I would be curious to know just how many times Peacegirl has been told this over the last 10 years. "If I had a nickle for every time I heard that?" She wouldn't need to sell books to make money.
Reply With Quote
  #24608  
Old 02-01-2013, 10:14 AM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I said that if the Sun is bright enough to see it, the photons would be at the retina. If the Sun was not bright enough when first ignited for us to see it, there would be no photons at the retina.
Ah, now it makes sense. You have intelligent magic photons that know what sort of telescope we are using to look at the object they are emitted or reflected from. They only bother to make the journey if we can impress them with a good enough pair of binoculars.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (02-01-2013)
  #24609  
Old 02-01-2013, 01:10 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
...if the Sun is bright enough to see it, the photons would be at the retina. The distance between the actual object and the eye is not significant. What is significant is the size and brightness of the object, which allows a mirror image to show up no matter how far away an object is.

it automatically places photons at the retina as a mirror image which means we are in the Sun's optical range due to light, but the light does not have to travel 93 million miles, which is where you are stuck.
Light doesn't work that way, that's why we keep asking you the same questions over and over.

That distance exists in physics and is significant in physical laws. You must account for light somehow bypassing that distance in your model.
LadyShea, you are failing to grasp this model which does not change the properties of light. But it does change what light does. If we see in real time, light does not bring the past to us through space/time; it reveals the world to us in real time. There is no bypassing distance in this model. It closes the distance gap because in this model distance is insignificant as long as the conditions of brightness and size are met. There is no violation of physics whatsoever.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #24610  
Old 02-01-2013, 01:18 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
They are different photons than the newly formed photons being emitted from the Sun.
Then where were they formed/emitted?
What are you getting at LadyShea? If light is constantly being emitted, then where do you think they are coming from?
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #24611  
Old 02-01-2013, 01:26 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I said that if the Sun is bright enough to see it, the photons would be at the retina. If the Sun was not bright enough when first ignited for us to see it, there would be no photons at the retina.
Ah, now it makes sense. You have intelligent magic photons that know what sort of telescope we are using to look at the object they are emitted or reflected from. They only bother to make the journey if we can impress them with a good enough pair of binoculars.
Binoculars or telescopes are used to magnify. The light redirects or refracts the light to the focal point, usually by a prism (second multi-faceted lens), which creates the impression that the object is close, but the object is still present. This doesn't prove that Lessans was wrong.

Read more: How Do Telescopes and Microscopes Magnify? | eHow.com How Do Telescopes and Microscopes Magnify? | eHow.com
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #24612  
Old 02-01-2013, 01:28 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by koan View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by koan View Post
You just had to come back because I was wrong?
Oh, I guess you're screwed then.

If you ever try to leave this thread you'll be stuck knowing that one of us will write the thread summary explaining how wrong Lessans is based on all the accumulated knowledge and scientific advancement since he wrote his book. How will you deal with the knowledge that someone got the last word and might have made you look bad? Can you deal with it? Could you walk away knowing that one of us "out there" probably made you look nuts? That's what'll happen. It's inevitable because we've already shown that you're nuts. How can you leave until you prove us wrong?

It's a dilemma. I know how to solve it but I won't tell you because you're so mean to me.
Oh be quiet koan. You didn't even respond to the post or the explanation I gave you because it made sense. You don't like that it made sense. You want to be right at all costs because you want Lessans to be wrong. You are a terrible reader because you have not understood a word he said. You don't even know what the discovery is. If I feel like responding to misinterpretations of this book, I will continue to do so, and you can do nothing about it. Think what you want about me, I could care less. You don't get to generalize your thoughts about me to everyone. This is your only validation, but it doesn't work because you don't know what other people think. Far from it. You are a wannabe shrink, and you're failing miserably. You don't know the first thing about psychoanalysis; you're speaking total psychobabble. :giggle: :laugh:
I did respond to your post. I just haven't had the time to go through all the nonsense yet so I started with
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I couldn't help from coming back because you're so utterly mistaken koan.
I have the rest of your responses on a wordpad so I can address each part. I'm interested in getting to an agreed upon summary. Your two years of contradictions and the internal contradictions of the book itself make a summary a difficult thing to achieve. Unlike you, I can actually visit this thread or not visit the thread and actually have better things to do from time to time. I had a lovely evening with my girlfriend last night. We didn't talk about you or your book because she couldn't manage to finish reading it. That is really going to be your main problem in getting your "discovery" into action. Too bad you're unwilling to fix the problem.
You're the one backpedaling. This has become a personal vendetta and I'm not interested koan.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #24613  
Old 02-01-2013, 01:30 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
What are you getting at LadyShea? If light is constantly being emitted, then where do you think they are coming from?
The question was where the light found on retinas at 12:00:00 came from if the Sun was turned on at 12:00:00

You answered "They are different photons than the newly formed photons being emitted from the Sun."

So where was the light located at the retina at 12:00:00 emitted from?

In this scenario the only photons being emitted are the new ones from the Sun. So my assumption was that they are from the Sun, but your answer seems to say that is not the case. Please clarify.

Remember it is 12:00:00. The Sun was just ignited. According to Lessans we can see it. If light is located at retinas at 12:00:00 as you state, then you must account for the production/origination of this light and account for how the light came to be located 93 million miles away at 12:00:00. No time has passed, at all.
Reply With Quote
  #24614  
Old 02-01-2013, 01:41 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
...if the Sun is bright enough to see it, the photons would be at the retina. The distance between the actual object and the eye is not significant. What is significant is the size and brightness of the object, which allows a mirror image to show up no matter how far away an object is.

it automatically places photons at the retina as a mirror image which means we are in the Sun's optical range due to light, but the light does not have to travel 93 million miles, which is where you are stuck.
Light doesn't work that way, that's why we keep asking you the same questions over and over.

That distance exists in physics and is significant in physical laws. You must account for light somehow bypassing that distance in your model.
LadyShea, you are failing to grasp this model which does not change the properties of light. But it does change what light does. If we see in real time, light does not bring the past to us through space/time; it reveals the world to us in real time. There is no bypassing distance in this model. It closes the distance gap because in this model distance is insignificant as long as the conditions of brightness and size are met. There is no violation of physics whatsoever.
What light does is part of its properties. Distance exists in physics and is significant in physical laws. Distance cannot be closed or negated by brightness or eyes looking.

If you have light physically being somewhere (on the surface of camera film or on the retina) you have to account for it coming to be there by some physical process, otherwise yes, you are violating physics

Last edited by LadyShea; 02-01-2013 at 03:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24615  
Old 02-01-2013, 01:42 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I said that if the Sun is bright enough to see it, the photons would be at the retina. If the Sun was not bright enough when first ignited for us to see it, there would be no photons at the retina.
Ah, now it makes sense. You have intelligent magic photons that know what sort of telescope we are using to look at the object they are emitted or reflected from. They only bother to make the journey if we can impress them with a good enough pair of binoculars.
Binoculars or telescopes are used to magnify.
It lets me see things I would otherwise not be able to see. You said photons only magically appear on my retina if I can see the object.

So if I can't see a distant star without binoculars, how does the photon know whether to be on my retina or not? Does it know if I'm using binoculars?
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-05-2013), LadyShea (02-01-2013)
  #24616  
Old 02-01-2013, 02:01 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
...if the Sun is bright enough to see it, the photons would be at the retina. The distance between the actual object and the eye is not significant. What is significant is the size and brightness of the object, which allows a mirror image to show up no matter how far away an object is.

it automatically places photons at the retina as a mirror image which means we are in the Sun's optical range due to light, but the light does not have to travel 93 million miles, which is where you are stuck.
Light doesn't work that way, that's why we keep asking you the same questions over and over.

That distance exists in physics and is significant in physical laws. You must account for light somehow bypassing that distance in your model.
LadyShea, you are failing to grasp this model which does not change the properties of light. But it does change what light does. If we see in real time, light does not bring the past to us through space/time; it reveals the world to us in real time. There is no bypassing distance in this model. It closes the distance gap because in this model distance is insignificant as long as the conditions of brightness and size are met. There is no violation of physics whatsoever.
In the efferent account of vision, how does the brain/eye negate the distance between the person looking and the object being seen?
Reply With Quote
  #24617  
Old 02-01-2013, 07:17 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
The correct answer is that Lessans' ideas are trash and deserve to be disregarded.

I would be curious to know just how many times Peacegirl has been told this over the last 10 years. "If I had a nickle for every time I heard that?" She wouldn't need to sell books to make money.
It would be a tidy sum, but the real money is in getting a nickel for all the times peacegirl has threatened to leave the forum.
Reply With Quote
  #24618  
Old 02-01-2013, 08:15 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I said that if the Sun is bright enough to see it, the photons would be at the retina. If the Sun was not bright enough when first ignited for us to see it, there would be no photons at the retina. The distance between the actual object and the eye is not significant. What is significant is the size and brightness of the object, which allows a mirror image to show up no matter how far away an object is.
None of this is what I'm asking you about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
They can't be the same photons Spacemonkey. They are different photons than the newly formed photons being emitted from the Sun. This is not magic or teleportation.
So then answer my questions. If you were talking about different photons when you said they came from the Sun and were located there at 12:00, then you weren't talking about the photons I asked you about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Please answer my questions, without contradiction this time:-


Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]
I answered those already.
No, you answered them wrongly. You either located the photons in two places at the same time, or were talking about different photons from those I asked you about. So you will need to answer them again:-


Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #24619  
Old 02-02-2013, 04:20 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
What are you getting at LadyShea? If light is constantly being emitted, then where do you think they are coming from?
The question was where the light found on retinas at 12:00:00 came from if the Sun was turned on at 12:00:00

You answered "They are different photons than the newly formed photons being emitted from the Sun."

So where was the light located at the retina at 12:00:00 emitted from?

In this scenario the only photons being emitted are the new ones from the Sun. So my assumption was that they are from the Sun, but your answer seems to say that is not the case. Please clarify.

Remember it is 12:00:00. The Sun was just ignited. According to Lessans we can see it. If light is located at retinas at 12:00:00 as you state, then you must account for the production/origination of this light and account for how the light came to be located 93 million miles away at 12:00:00. No time has passed, at all.
I'm sorry but I don't think there's a way to get you to see that the light does not have to travel 93 million miles to receive an image. The light in the efferent account acts as a bridge to see the outer world. This does not violate physics. No time is involved in this model because the pattern is not being received by light which has traveled through space/time, although the full spectrum of light is constantly being emitted. Lessans was making a distinction between light which takes 8 minutes to reach Earth, and seeing the Sun instantly (as opposed to having to traverse this distance). If the Sun was dim when ignited, we would not see it, but if we were able to see the Sun the second it was turned on this would automatically put the photons at the eye. When we turn on a lightbulb, we can see the lamp because the photons are already at the eye. It doesn't take any time at all. The same exact situation happens with the Sun being turned on because the same requirements have been fulfilled.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #24620  
Old 02-02-2013, 04:27 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
...if the Sun is bright enough to see it, the photons would be at the retina. The distance between the actual object and the eye is not significant. What is significant is the size and brightness of the object, which allows a mirror image to show up no matter how far away an object is.

it automatically places photons at the retina as a mirror image which means we are in the Sun's optical range due to light, but the light does not have to travel 93 million miles, which is where you are stuck.
Light doesn't work that way, that's why we keep asking you the same questions over and over.

That distance exists in physics and is significant in physical laws. You must account for light somehow bypassing that distance in your model.
LadyShea, you are failing to grasp this model which does not change the properties of light. But it does change what light does. If we see in real time, light does not bring the past to us through space/time; it reveals the world to us in real time. There is no bypassing distance in this model. It closes the distance gap because in this model distance is insignificant as long as the conditions of brightness and size are met. There is no violation of physics whatsoever.
What light does is part of its properties. Distance exists in physics and is significant in physical laws. Distance cannot be closed or negated by brightness or eyes looking.

If you have light physically being somewhere (on the surface of camera film or on the retina) you have to account for it coming to be there by some physical process, otherwise yes, you are violating physics
You keep talking about "coming to be there". There is no coming to be there in this account because that would require travel and time. But what you're not getting is that the eyes are using light as a condition. These non-absorbed photons are not traveling, even though the full spectrum is traveling. Anything the full spectrum strikes will produce non-absorbed photons which reveal the object, but this split spectrum does not bounce. It disperses and when this occurs there is only white light left. There is no collection of light that will produce an image when the object is no longer present where it can be seen by the naked eye or a telescope.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #24621  
Old 02-02-2013, 04:31 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I said that if the Sun is bright enough to see it, the photons would be at the retina. If the Sun was not bright enough when first ignited for us to see it, there would be no photons at the retina.
Ah, now it makes sense. You have intelligent magic photons that know what sort of telescope we are using to look at the object they are emitted or reflected from. They only bother to make the journey if we can impress them with a good enough pair of binoculars.
Binoculars or telescopes are used to magnify.
It lets me see things I would otherwise not be able to see. You said photons only magically appear on my retina if I can see the object.

So if I can't see a distant star without binoculars, how does the photon know whether to be on my retina or not? Does it know if I'm using binoculars?
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said photons magically appear on your retina. I said that if you see an object, that means it meets the requirements of sight, which means that the non-absorbed photons are already at the retina. You have to remember that we're looking at the world in reverse. We're not waiting for light to bring the image through space/time. We're seeing the object using light as a condition. These are two distinct phenomena and you're only thinking in terms of the latter.

Why are you making this a joke? If the light is too dim, a telescope will gather the light and redirect it to the focal point making the object appear closer, but you have to have the raw materials for the telescope to have anything to enlarge. If you don't have any object to work with, you won't get an image no matter how strong the magnification.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #24622  
Old 02-02-2013, 04:55 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
When we turn on a lightbulb, we can see the lamp because the photons are already at the eye. It doesn't take any time at all. The same exact situation happens with the Sun being turned on because the same requirements have been fulfilled.

As has been stated before, this is where Lessans got things so wrong, by not finding out what was really happening and going with his own uninformed preceptions. When you turn on a lamp the photons are not already at the eye they must travel the distance from the lamp to the eye, but at the distances encountered on Earth, light travels so quickly that it seems instantaneous. Lessans simply had no concept of the speed of light and thought that because he couldn't detect a delay, vision must be instantaneous. Just a little education, or reading books on the right subject, could have sorted things out, and we wouldn't be having this thread.

Peacegirl, try to wrap your mind around this. If you could get light to travel in a curve around the Earth, you could shine a beam of light and have it orbit the Earth. At the speed of light, say just above the atmosphere (I know there is no actual edge it just gets thinner) light could go around the earth 7.75 times in one second. So try to imagine how quickly light could get from one side of a room to the other. Humans can't detect something that quick without very special equipment, and under normal conditions it seems to be instantly.
Reply With Quote
  #24623  
Old 02-02-2013, 05:40 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You keep talking about "coming to be there". There is no coming to be there in this account because that would require travel and time. But what you're not getting is that the eyes are using light as a condition. These non-absorbed photons are not traveling, even though the full spectrum is traveling. Anything the full spectrum strikes will produce non-absorbed photons which reveal the object, but this split spectrum does not bounce. It disperses and when this occurs there is only white light left. There is no collection of light that will produce an image when the object is no longer present where it can be seen by the naked eye or a telescope.
A few points here, there is no such thing as 'non-absorbed light' that does not travel, all light travels or it is not light. So any 'non-absorbed light' must 'bounce' (reflect) or it is not light and the photons have disapeared. There is no such thing as 'White Light' the way you are useing the word, what we see as white light is a combination of all the frequencies (colors) mixed together. The colors of the rainbow mixed together are "White Light" and in fact the rainbow is formed by seperating 'White Light' into the individual colors.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (02-03-2013)
  #24624  
Old 02-02-2013, 09:19 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I said that if the Sun is bright enough to see it, the photons would be at the retina. If the Sun was not bright enough when first ignited for us to see it, there would be no photons at the retina. The distance between the actual object and the eye is not significant. What is significant is the size and brightness of the object, which allows a mirror image to show up no matter how far away an object is.
None of this is what I'm asking you about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
They can't be the same photons Spacemonkey. They are different photons than the newly formed photons being emitted from the Sun. This is not magic or teleportation.
So then answer my questions. If you were talking about different photons when you said they came from the Sun and were located there at 12:00, then you weren't talking about the photons I asked you about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Please answer my questions, without contradiction this time:-


Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]
I answered those already.
No, you answered them wrongly. You either located the photons in two places at the same time, or were talking about different photons from those I asked you about. So you will need to answer them again:-


Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]
Bump.
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #24625  
Old 02-02-2013, 09:28 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Isn't it obvious by now that peacegirl suffers from schizophrenia? What is the point of constantly questioning her delusions? She needs treatment, not questions.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (0 members and 6 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.02371 seconds with 14 queries